I’d say an alternative is to consider that, for individuals, government (mostly) issues prohibitions. You can’t do this or that. You can’t exceed a certain speed on this piece of tarmac. It seldomly induces you to do something…such as your examples of income or property tax collection.
But I agree with the characterization of businesses being treated much differently. They are induced to collect sales tax, as you noted.
Noooo... Well, we must have a carve-out just for you, Joe! 🙂 We could eliminate taxes, but give some compensation to Joe.
Honestly, I was thinking about this a few years ago. In Canada, we have this stupid system called "supply management" where would-be dairy, egg and poultry farmers must buy an expensive "quota" and cannot produce beyond that quota, to keep the supply low and the price high. It's dumb. It's great for existing farmers. It's bad for consumers and would-be farmers. It should be abolished.
I was talking about this a few years ago with some colleagues:
Me: "If I was PM, I'd abolish supply management."
Colleague: "But my uncle is a dairy farmer!"
Me: "OK, fine! If I was PM, We'd compensate your uncle and THEN get rid of supply management!"
Although, at the time, I said that half-jokingly, I thought more about it: Actually, that's not such a bad idea! Getting rid of supply management is a good idea and compensating a few farmers who are close family and friends of the ruling elite is cheaper than compensating every farmer and better for Canadians than letting supply management continue.
And, now I understand the temptation of cronyism...
"Recent Events" have got me thinking about this. America, today, seems very close to your draconian example of: "typical American[s] s[eeing] the police bust down a stranger‘s door to arrest an undocumented nanny and the parents who hired her". I wonder how this will play out. I think many Americans are for the status quo in immigration laws but don't have the stomach for the ugliness of inland enforcement. Immigration enforcement usually happens at airline check-in desks around the world. Out of site, out of mind for most Americans.
But now that they are confronted with seeing the brutality of immigration enforcement literally on their doorsteps ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI9NeqviAfU ), will they:
a) re-evaluate their views on immigration laws?
b) Become numb to the cruelty of it (not unlike how most city dwellers become numb to homelessness)
or c) As soon as they can, go back to the comfortable compromise of the strict status quo for immigration laws but very little inland enforcement
Anyone wanna place bets? I hope for a), but sadly, I'd bet on c)
Show me a group of people who live free of limits placed on them by their group and I will show you a bunch of humans who will die soon or be taken over by a bunch of rule following humans. Groups of humans are to memetic evolution what individuals are to genetic evolution and memetic evolution dominates human evolution because it is an unbelievably winning strategy. Even “free markets” are impossible without coercive constraints against theft and other torts which are handled by courts.
This is why humans don’t bridle against government coercion. Because they like being rich, healthy, and living in low crime neighborhoods. The only way libertarians can ever succeed is by privatizing coercion. This has been tried repeatedly throughout human history with fairly crappy results.
Of course this is all true. Even now, after so many years, every time I see my paycheck broken down, I'm angry that I don't even have the chance to refuse to pay the leeches.
Using coercion as an all inclusive term, including taxation or payments to services such as healthcare or social security stretches whatever moral stickiness BC is trying to suggest.
Interesting take.
I’d say an alternative is to consider that, for individuals, government (mostly) issues prohibitions. You can’t do this or that. You can’t exceed a certain speed on this piece of tarmac. It seldomly induces you to do something…such as your examples of income or property tax collection.
But I agree with the characterization of businesses being treated much differently. They are induced to collect sales tax, as you noted.
Without taxation, the accounting profession (I'm an accountant) would be a SMALL fraction of what it is. The legal profession, too.
Noooo... Well, we must have a carve-out just for you, Joe! 🙂 We could eliminate taxes, but give some compensation to Joe.
Honestly, I was thinking about this a few years ago. In Canada, we have this stupid system called "supply management" where would-be dairy, egg and poultry farmers must buy an expensive "quota" and cannot produce beyond that quota, to keep the supply low and the price high. It's dumb. It's great for existing farmers. It's bad for consumers and would-be farmers. It should be abolished.
I was talking about this a few years ago with some colleagues:
Me: "If I was PM, I'd abolish supply management."
Colleague: "But my uncle is a dairy farmer!"
Me: "OK, fine! If I was PM, We'd compensate your uncle and THEN get rid of supply management!"
Although, at the time, I said that half-jokingly, I thought more about it: Actually, that's not such a bad idea! Getting rid of supply management is a good idea and compensating a few farmers who are close family and friends of the ruling elite is cheaper than compensating every farmer and better for Canadians than letting supply management continue.
And, now I understand the temptation of cronyism...
* COMMONWEALTH of Virginia!
"Recent Events" have got me thinking about this. America, today, seems very close to your draconian example of: "typical American[s] s[eeing] the police bust down a stranger‘s door to arrest an undocumented nanny and the parents who hired her". I wonder how this will play out. I think many Americans are for the status quo in immigration laws but don't have the stomach for the ugliness of inland enforcement. Immigration enforcement usually happens at airline check-in desks around the world. Out of site, out of mind for most Americans.
But now that they are confronted with seeing the brutality of immigration enforcement literally on their doorsteps ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI9NeqviAfU ), will they:
a) re-evaluate their views on immigration laws?
b) Become numb to the cruelty of it (not unlike how most city dwellers become numb to homelessness)
or c) As soon as they can, go back to the comfortable compromise of the strict status quo for immigration laws but very little inland enforcement
Anyone wanna place bets? I hope for a), but sadly, I'd bet on c)
Show me a group of people who live free of limits placed on them by their group and I will show you a bunch of humans who will die soon or be taken over by a bunch of rule following humans. Groups of humans are to memetic evolution what individuals are to genetic evolution and memetic evolution dominates human evolution because it is an unbelievably winning strategy. Even “free markets” are impossible without coercive constraints against theft and other torts which are handled by courts.
This is why humans don’t bridle against government coercion. Because they like being rich, healthy, and living in low crime neighborhoods. The only way libertarians can ever succeed is by privatizing coercion. This has been tried repeatedly throughout human history with fairly crappy results.
Of course this is all true. Even now, after so many years, every time I see my paycheck broken down, I'm angry that I don't even have the chance to refuse to pay the leeches.
“We just need to convince people that indirect coercion of business is coercion of people.”
So what? You’re presupposing that all forms of coercion are wrong, when they clearly are not.
Okay, fine. The kinds of coercion employed by the government are wrong. (With rare possible exceptions.)
Using coercion as an all inclusive term, including taxation or payments to services such as healthcare or social security stretches whatever moral stickiness BC is trying to suggest.